1. Muhammad Israr Khan, U. D. C. (Seasonal), Cane Department, Serai Naurang, District Bannu, has submitted this petition under section 25-A (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (hereinafter referred as an Ordinance), for the cancellation of the order dated, 18th September, 1974, of the Project Manager, Sugar Mills, Serai Naurang, whereby respondents 2 to 5 were made permanent on the post of L. D. C. and. U. D. C.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he along with the respondents 2 to 5 joined service as L. D. C's on 13November, 1965. Except Sayed Badshah, respondent No. 5 all other respondents were promoted to the post of U. D. C's on 21January, 1972. He worked in that Department on (Season--al) basis for seven years. He was then transferred to the Accounts Depart--ment where the employees of that Department objected that he being senior in service that would affect their turn of becoming permanent in that Depart--ment. On their objection, the then Manager of the Sugar Mills, issued as Office Order, dated 22nd December, 1972, stating that the seniority of the Employee shall be maintained in the Parent Department, from which he was transferred. By this order the employees were pacified and the petitioner whose Parent Department, was Cane Department worked for two years in the Accounts Department. There occurred four posts, two of L. D. C.'s and two of U. D. C's on which Seasonal Clerks, according to their seniority were to be made permanent op that post, therefore, the petitioner approached the Manager, that he be considered for being made permanent in his parent Department, but no heed was paid to it and the respondents 3 to 5 were selected through a toss. The petitioner has prayed that the order be cancelled and respondent No.1, be directed to fill the posts after making the petitioner party to the fresh toss.th st This application was contested by all the respondents and following issues were framed in the case:-
(1) Whether order, dated 18th September, 1974, of respondent No. 1, by which respondents No. 2 to 5 were made permanent as L. D. C. and U. D. C. is contrary to law, rules and regulations, practice in vogue and liable to be cancelled ; or
(2) Whether petition is time-barred ; or
(3) Whether petition is not maintainable ; or
(4) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ; or
(5) Relief?
3. Both the parties were directed to produce their evidence on 6th December, 1976. The statement of the petitioner was recorded on that day, when Abdur Razzaq Khan, Advocate, requested that he be allowed another adjourn--ment to produce the witnesses. This request of the learned counsel was not acceded to as he had submitted no list of witnesses. Abdul Hamid, respondent No. 3, and Amir Abbas respondent No. 4 were then examined and evidence on their behalf was closed. Respondent No. 1 also failed to produce evidence on 6th December, 1976, and the request of the learned, on his behalf for the adjournment of the case was also disallowed, because these cases have to be decided in shortest possible time as required by law and this file is pending for disposal since 9th November, 1974. Today was the date fixed for arguments and before the arguments could be addressed learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted in the application. The law does not permit such type of application and as such it was dismissed. In the light of the evidence on record my findings on the issues areas follows: Issue No. 1: The first and foremost requirement in this petition was to prove that the petitioner had any guaranteed right under any law or any award or settlement. The petitioner has been unable to prove as to what right he had and what settlement was arrived at between the Employer and Workers. In the absence of the settlement the allegations of the petitioner cannot be considered.
4. Petitioner's own prayer that fresh toss be held for considering the right is itself ridiculous. No law or settlement will provide the right to be made permanent on a particular post by adopting the method of toss. Then the petitioner has not placed on the record the impugned order to know as to how he was aggrieved of that order. In the absence of that order the petitioner's contention cannot be properly understood. It was the duty of the, petitioner to have placed that order or its copy on the file. The petitioner has also been unable to prove his guaranteed right as being made permanent on the basis of any settlement or law. This issue is, therefore, not proved which is decided against the petitioner.
5. Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4: These issues are not proved and are decided against the respondents.
6. For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed. Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Provincial Government as contemplated by section 37 of the Ordinance.